Why aren't kids a bigger priority?

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Actually the marriage was pretty much dead in the water so all working 3rd shift meant was not having to deal with who got to sleep on the sofa and who got the bed.I was home days and cared for my own children,which is all that counts for the purposes of this thread.

I know... I do remember that your ex-hubbie was a deadbeat. You are a good mommy.

My ex isn't a bad person and in his own way loves our children very much.He wasn't a good husband but he is a fairly decent father and in the end that's all that matters. My point is that retainng the ability to provide basics for our kids turned out to be very important, I feel a woman who loses her ability to do so in case of an emergency is actually neglecting and potentially abusing her children.You can never tell what hand life will deal you and being prepared is prudent.

If he loves your children he would have respected you and kept his vows. If you're not a good husband, how can you be a good father? He couldn't have made his children a priority and his extra-martial affairs a priority at the same time. What good is a father to his kids if the only example he can give him is of deceit and neglect. Now that your kids are young adults, they turned out okay because they're not criminals. But what psychological affect did that have on their ability to maintain a relationship with someone?

2 things happen to kids when they've grown up in a divorced or hostile environment. Either 1. they repeat what they saw, because to them it's normal or 2. they work as hard as possible to prevent it from happening to them because they had a higher understanding of what really happened.

Fortunately for me I'm #2, but I still harbor a lot of anger towards my father and mother to this day. I won't make that mistake with my wife.

Geekbabe, were your parents ever divorced?

I don't sit in judgement of my ex,we've been divorced a long time and I figured out early on that it was best for the kids if we could be civil towards each other and I think overall that w've managed to do a pretty good job of not dragging them into the middle of things and of allowing them to form their own opinions of us based on their experiences with each of us as individuals.

That's fair. That's actually very good for that kind of situation. You did mention that you were working as a divorced mother to put food on the table. Wasn't your exhusband still supporting you financially?

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Most sensible people agree that having a stay at home parent is beneficial for children.

Loaded question right from the start.
I can't see this discussion going anywhere

Totally agreed. I'd be happy to have this discussion, when you can approach the conversation open mindedly.

The discussion seems to be proceeding just fine. My opening comments were provocative to stimulate discussion but not close minded.

It's semantics.

Clearly the implication was/is that you are a worse parent if you don't stay at home. No one wants to hear that. It's so emotionally charged that no one (in that position) would be able to answer it openly. The OP makes it clear that whatever the rationale you are wrong not to stay at home, and only asks why have kids.

I'm not sure what your beef is.

I think it's pretty clear that it benefits achild to have a stay at home parent. If you have the wherewithal to stay at home a take care of your child and you do not then I would say that you are putting your needs above your childs and that you aren't a good parent.

You've pre-formed a conclusion, therefore this is NOT a discussion, but simply an indictment of working parents. Not only that but you've also created nebulous stipulations like wherewithal. I have no beef other than to point out (as I originally posted) that this NOT by any means an open-minded discussion.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

And it is possible to raise well-adjusted productive members of society w/o a parent being present 24/7 for the first 10 years or so of life.

Can you explain why the teen suicide rate has gone uo 3x since 1970? Think it has anything to do with less parental involvement?

I would like to see statistics concerning the subset of the teenage population that commits suicide.

I'm not sure that I understand your question.

To blame a statistical increase in teen suicide rates purely on the "lack of parental involvement", without any supporting studies or data, is foolish.

For one, the actual teen suicide rate may not have increased as dramatically as many may have thought, due to differences in cultural attitudes towards teen suicide (i.e. if a teen commits suicide, it reflects much, much more on the parents in 1930 than it may in 1990, perhaps?).

Second, have you bothered to examine differences in expectations of teenagers, differences in youth culture, etc?

Riprorin, you still haven't answered this question.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Actually the marriage was pretty much dead in the water so all working 3rd shift meant was not having to deal with who got to sleep on the sofa and who got the bed.I was home days and cared for my own children,which is all that counts for the purposes of this thread.

I know... I do remember that your ex-hubbie was a deadbeat. You are a good mommy.

My ex isn't a bad person and in his own way loves our children very much.He wasn't a good husband but he is a fairly decent father and in the end that's all that matters. My point is that retainng the ability to provide basics for our kids turned out to be very important, I feel a woman who loses her ability to do so in case of an emergency is actually neglecting and potentially abusing her children.You can never tell what hand life will deal you and being prepared is prudent.

If he loves your children he would have respected you and kept his vows. If you're not a good husband, how can you be a good father? He couldn't have made his children a priority and his extra-martial affairs a priority at the same time. What good is a father to his kids if the only example he can give him is of deceit and neglect. Now that your kids are young adults, they turned out okay because they're not criminals. But what psychological affect did that have on their ability to maintain a relationship with someone?

2 things happen to kids when they've grown up in a divorced or hostile environment. Either 1. they repeat what they saw, because to them it's normal or 2. they work as hard as possible to prevent it from happening to them because they had a higher understanding of what really happened.

Fortunately for me I'm #2, but I still harbor a lot of anger towards my father and mother to this day. I won't make that mistake with my wife.

Geekbabe, were your parents ever divorced?

I don't sit in judgement of my ex,we've been divorced a long time and I figured out early on that it was best for the kids if we could be civil towards each other and I think overall that w've managed to do a pretty good job of not dragging them into the middle of things and of allowing them to form their own opinions of us based on their experiences with each of us as individuals.

That's fair. That's actually very good for that kind of situation. You did mention that you were working as a divorced mother to put food on the table. Wasn't your exhusband still supporting you financially?

$100 per week when he felt he could afford it didn't provide much in the way of "support" for anyone.

I knew and understood that accepting the obligation and honor of full custody would require me to provide full support to my children and I did so with as much dignity as I could muster, his money,when it came swas used to provide the children with extras but was never counted upon by me in doing the monthly budget.

 

[StageLeft]

Based on what I've read in some cases a stay at home mom not only can give too high a dependence for the children on her but her life can frequently become small, especially when the kids are out of the house and she's left at home out of the work force for too long.

You can easily have two working parents with well adjusted kids - and the income required to bring them on vacation, provide for their college, etc.

Kids don't need their mother at home and she will in most cases lead a more fulfilling life as well.

Studies have been done.

Anyway I'm going to work and so is MrsSkoorb. She's glad both of her parents did and I'm glad both of mine did, even though we could have gotten by fine on either income.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

And it is possible to raise well-adjusted productive members of society w/o a parent being present 24/7 for the first 10 years or so of life.

Can you explain why the teen suicide rate has gone uo 3x since 1970? Think it has anything to do with less parental involvement?

I would like to see statistics concerning the subset of the teenage population that commits suicide.

I'm not sure that I understand your question.

To blame a statistical increase in teen suicide rates purely on the "lack of parental involvement", without any supporting studies or data, is foolish.

For one, the actual teen suicide rate may not have increased as dramatically as many may have thought, due to differences in cultural attitudes towards teen suicide (i.e. if a teen commits suicide, it reflects much, much more on the parents in 1930 than it may in 1990, perhaps?).

Second, have you bothered to examine differences in expectations of teenagers, differences in youth culture, etc?

Riprorin, you still haven't answered this question.

I'm not a child psychologist nor am I an expert in this area. I was just reporting on statistics I've seen.

Common sense tells me that there's probably some correlation between less parental involvement, ie. lack of a parent at home, and teen suicide. I'm not denying that there are other factors.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Actually the marriage was pretty much dead in the water so all working 3rd shift meant was not having to deal with who got to sleep on the sofa and who got the bed.I was home days and cared for my own children,which is all that counts for the purposes of this thread.

I know... I do remember that your ex-hubbie was a deadbeat. You are a good mommy.

My ex isn't a bad person and in his own way loves our children very much.He wasn't a good husband but he is a fairly decent father and in the end that's all that matters. My point is that retainng the ability to provide basics for our kids turned out to be very important, I feel a woman who loses her ability to do so in case of an emergency is actually neglecting and potentially abusing her children.You can never tell what hand life will deal you and being prepared is prudent.

If he loves your children he would have respected you and kept his vows. If you're not a good husband, how can you be a good father? He couldn't have made his children a priority and his extra-martial affairs a priority at the same time. What good is a father to his kids if the only example he can give him is of deceit and neglect. Now that your kids are young adults, they turned out okay because they're not criminals. But what psychological affect did that have on their ability to maintain a relationship with someone?

2 things happen to kids when they've grown up in a divorced or hostile environment. Either 1. they repeat what they saw, because to them it's normal or 2. they work as hard as possible to prevent it from happening to them because they had a higher understanding of what really happened.

Fortunately for me I'm #2, but I still harbor a lot of anger towards my father and mother to this day. I won't make that mistake with my wife.

Geekbabe, were your parents ever divorced?

I don't sit in judgement of my ex,we've been divorced a long time and I figured out early on that it was best for the kids if we could be civil towards each other and I think overall that w've managed to do a pretty good job of not dragging them into the middle of things and of allowing them to form their own opinions of us based on their experiences with each of us as individuals.

I don't get this "I don't sit in judgement" business.

I applaud you for getting along with this jerk for the sake of your kids, but face the facts - the guys a rotten louse who cheated on you. What's wrong with a little judgement?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Based on what I've read in some cases a stay at home mom not only can give too high a dependence for the children on her but her life can frequently become small, especially when the kids are out of the house and she's left at home out of the work force for too long.

You can easily have two working parents with well adjusted kids - and the income required to bring them on vacation, provide for their college, etc.

Kids don't need their mother at home and she will in most cases lead a more fulfilling life as well.

Studies have been done.

Anyway I'm going to work and so is MrsSkoorb. She's glad both of her parents did and I'm glad both of mine did, even though we could have gotten by fine on either income.

Glad it worked out well for you but it's not the case for a lot of kids.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

And it is possible to raise well-adjusted productive members of society w/o a parent being present 24/7 for the first 10 years or so of life.

Can you explain why the teen suicide rate has gone uo 3x since 1970? Think it has anything to do with less parental involvement?

I would like to see statistics concerning the subset of the teenage population that commits suicide.

I'm not sure that I understand your question.

To blame a statistical increase in teen suicide rates purely on the "lack of parental involvement", without any supporting studies or data, is foolish.

For one, the actual teen suicide rate may not have increased as dramatically as many may have thought, due to differences in cultural attitudes towards teen suicide (i.e. if a teen commits suicide, it reflects much, much more on the parents in 1930 than it may in 1990, perhaps?).

Second, have you bothered to examine differences in expectations of teenagers, differences in youth culture, etc?

Riprorin, you still haven't answered this question.

I'm not a child psychologist nor am I an expert in this area. I was just reporting on statistics I've seen.

Common sense tells me that there's probably some correlation between less parental involvement, ie. lack of a parent at home, and teen suicide. I'm not denying that there are other factors.

So, basically, you have no idea what you're talking about - you made up some ad hominem explanation so you could rant about your perception of modern society, without any real knowledge of causation or correlation between different factors affecting teen suicide rates?

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Most sensible people agree that having a stay at home parent is beneficial for children.

Yet, in most families, both parents work.

If you don't want to take care of your kids or your really into your career or accumulating stuff, why have children?

that's a tough question. Where we live it's hard to get by on $70k (NET) / year, (NOT GROSS, but NET). My wife stays home, we have three kids.

For us it was an economic decision. if we put all 3 kids in day care etc and all the other expenses associated w/ my wife being at work 5 days a week, we'd come out even, or maybe just a little ahead. We just weren't willing to sacrifice our children in order to get that little extra.

However, it is tough doing it on a single salary.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

And it is possible to raise well-adjusted productive members of society w/o a parent being present 24/7 for the first 10 years or so of life.

Can you explain why the teen suicide rate has gone uo 3x since 1970? Think it has anything to do with less parental involvement?

I would like to see statistics concerning the subset of the teenage population that commits suicide.

I'm not sure that I understand your question.

To blame a statistical increase in teen suicide rates purely on the "lack of parental involvement", without any supporting studies or data, is foolish.

For one, the actual teen suicide rate may not have increased as dramatically as many may have thought, due to differences in cultural attitudes towards teen suicide (i.e. if a teen commits suicide, it reflects much, much more on the parents in 1930 than it may in 1990, perhaps?).

Second, have you bothered to examine differences in expectations of teenagers, differences in youth culture, etc?

Riprorin, you still haven't answered this question.

I'm not a child psychologist nor am I an expert in this area. I was just reporting on statistics I've seen.

Common sense tells me that there's probably some correlation between less parental involvement, ie. lack of a parent at home, and teen suicide. I'm not denying that there are other factors.

So, basically, you have no idea what you're talking about - you made up some ad hominem explanation so you could rant about your perception of modern society, without any real knowledge of causation or correlation between different factors affecting teen suicide rates?

If you say so. This thread isn't about teen suicide. I simply made the observation that teen suicide is up 3x since 1970 and inferred that it's related to the fact there are more familes where both parents are in the work force thans there were 30 years ago. I haven't done and exhaustive study of teen suicide and I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Anyway, we're getting off topic.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

If you say so. This thread isn't about teen suicide. I simply made the observation that teen suicide is up 3x since 1970 and inferred that it's related to the fact there are more familes where both parents are in the work force thans there were 30 years ago. I haven't done and exhaustive study of teen suicide and I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Anyway, we're getting off topic.

No, I think we're exactly on topic.

In aggregate, I don't necessarily think that kids get any less attention from their parents than they did fifty years ago. Both my parents have worked full time throughout my life, but I know that their children are their top priority. Ditto for all (ALL) of the friends that I know.

Something tells me that the kids that 'act out' today would've been the same kids who did this sh!t fifty or one hundred years ago, regardless of their parents' working status.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Based on what I've read in some cases a stay at home mom not only can give too high a dependence for the children on her but her life can frequently become small, especially when the kids are out of the house and she's left at home out of the work force for too long.

You can easily have two working parents with well adjusted kids - and the income required to bring them on vacation, provide for their college, etc.

Kids don't need their mother at home and she will in most cases lead a more fulfilling life as well.

Studies have been done.

Anyway I'm going to work and so is MrsSkoorb. She's glad both of her parents did and I'm glad both of mine did, even though we could have gotten by fine on either income.

Glad it worked out well for you but it's not the case for a lot of kids.

For us, my wife plans on going to work / school once the youngest is in grade school. I believe that the mother only needs to be home for the first few years of the childrens lives.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

If you say so. This thread isn't about teen suicide. I simply made the observation that teen suicide is up 3x since 1970 and inferred that it's related to the fact there are more familes where both parents are in the work force thans there were 30 years ago. I haven't done and exhaustive study of teen suicide and I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Anyway, we're getting off topic.

No, I think we're exactly on topic.

In aggregate, I don't necessarily think that kids get any less attention from their parents than they did fifty years ago. Both my parents have worked full time throughout my life, but I know that their children are their top priority. Ditto for all (ALL) of the friends that I know.

Something tells me that the kids that 'act out' today would've been the same kids who did this sh!t fifty or one hundred years ago, regardless of their parents' working status.

Obviously something has changed otherwise the teen suicide rate woudn't have gone up 3X since 1970.

What changes since 1970 do you think have led to kids being so hopeless that they end their own lives?

I've provided one cause and you've provided nothing except to say that divorce and day care has effect on children.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

If you say so. This thread isn't about teen suicide. I simply made the observation that teen suicide is up 3x since 1970 and inferred that it's related to the fact there are more familes where both parents are in the work force thans there were 30 years ago. I haven't done and exhaustive study of teen suicide and I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Anyway, we're getting off topic.

No, I think we're exactly on topic.

In aggregate, I don't necessarily think that kids get any less attention from their parents than they did fifty years ago. Both my parents have worked full time throughout my life, but I know that their children are their top priority. Ditto for all (ALL) of the friends that I know.

Something tells me that the kids that 'act out' today would've been the same kids who did this sh!t fifty or one hundred years ago, regardless of their parents' working status.

This is BS, the term Latch Key kids didn't come out of NOWHERE. with both parents working full time, kids do get less attention from their parents. Kids lives these days are function centered, they go to school, then they go to after school activities, then they go to this event or that event.

back in the "good ole days" lives of kids were a lot more centered on family. Not the same.

 

[Geekbabe]

As far as teen suicide goes I think a lot of that has to do with cultural lessening of the stigma associated with suicide.Back in the good old days such things were merely whispered about,families of those who took their own lives often went to great lengths to keep such info private.Nowadays it's almost a celebrated act, with dead music stars being memorialised at every turn.

Talking about such things is good and is healthy,most everybody at least thinks about suicide at one time or another over the course of their lifetime but to idolize somebody who didn't have the courage to live in spite of seemingly having the world on a platter.. well, that strikes me as wrong.

 

[pandapanda]

Are you considering all social situation? What about the families where mom is at home with her 7 kids, and the welfare check comes in every month? Are the kids better off because mom is at home? What exactly are they learning? Are they learning about a work ethic? Is mom teaching them anything? MANY of your inner city kids have a parent home with them and they fail miserably in school and in society. Was having parent at home a benefit for them?

My children have all 3 been in daycare. One is still daycare age. My oldest child is autistic, but functions quite well in school. Very possibly because he was allowed early interactions with other people. My middle child is smart, well-behaved, and quite happy. My youngest loves going to "school". My children aren't scared to be left with a sitter. My children aren't stuck to my apron-strings. Adjusting to Kindergarten hasn't been much of an issue for my kids because they were accustomed to going to "school".

My children are a priority. Having enough money to be able to pay for things they need is a part of that. We HAVE to have a place to live, and moving isn't an option--the jobs are here, not in cheapo USA. We have to have 2 vehicles. Beyond that, what money we have goes to basic needs--electricity, food, clothing, and medication. Aside from that, I don't want to stay home with my children. That may be unpopular, and it may be looked down on, but it's the truth. I love them, and I feel like they need more from life than being stuck at home and running errands all day. If you feel differently, then fine. Run your household the way you wish, and let other people live they way they wish.

I also have a real problem with the idea of the mother SHOULD stay at home. Why? So she is forced to be dependent on others? There are too many unreliable men in the world today. Not to mention that at any time, an accident can occur and what happens then? A woman who has been out of the workplace for 10 years to raise a family isn't a real marketable person.

I have a friend whose husband commited suicide and left her, a SAHM, to raise 2 children. She has nothing.
I had a child in one of my classes whose mother had lupus and was unable to keep her at home even though she didn't work. She was too sick. She died when the child was 5.

Look past the obvious. You don't know what all struggles people have.

 

[walrus]

Kids can't vote or give large amounts af money to politicians.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
As far as teen suicide goes I think a lot of that has to do with cultural lessening of the stigma associated with suicide.Back in the good old days such things were merely whispered about,families of those who took their own lives often went to great lengths to keep such info private.Nowadays it's almost a celebrated act, with dead music stars being memorialised at every turn.

Talking about such things is good and is healthy,most everybody at least thinks about suicide at one time or another over the course of their lifetime but to idolize somebody who didn't have the courage to live in spite of seemingly having the world on a platter.. well, that strikes me as wrong.

Thank you! I was trying to think of a way to explain what I was thinking originally, and this pretty much summed it up.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

If you say so. This thread isn't about teen suicide. I simply made the observation that teen suicide is up 3x since 1970 and inferred that it's related to the fact there are more familes where both parents are in the work force thans there were 30 years ago. I haven't done and exhaustive study of teen suicide and I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Anyway, we're getting off topic.

No, I think we're exactly on topic.

In aggregate, I don't necessarily think that kids get any less attention from their parents than they did fifty years ago. Both my parents have worked full time throughout my life, but I know that their children are their top priority. Ditto for all (ALL) of the friends that I know.

Something tells me that the kids that 'act out' today would've been the same kids who did this sh!t fifty or one hundred years ago, regardless of their parents' working status.

This is BS, the term Latch Key kids didn't come out of NOWHERE. with both parents working full time, kids do get less attention from their parents. Kids lives these days are function centered, they go to school, then they go to after school activities, then they go to this event or that event.

back in the "good ole days" lives of kids were a lot more centered on family. Not the same.

Hahaha, right, right. The "good ole days". The good ole days of segregation and racial/gender inequality.

Latchkey kids have always existed, I think it's the amount of attention they receive now (due to child "psychologists" and such) that for some reason implies causation.

I ask you, how many latchkey kids commit suicide?

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

If you say so. This thread isn't about teen suicide. I simply made the observation that teen suicide is up 3x since 1970 and inferred that it's related to the fact there are more familes where both parents are in the work force thans there were 30 years ago. I haven't done and exhaustive study of teen suicide and I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Anyway, we're getting off topic.

No, I think we're exactly on topic.

In aggregate, I don't necessarily think that kids get any less attention from their parents than they did fifty years ago. Both my parents have worked full time throughout my life, but I know that their children are their top priority. Ditto for all (ALL) of the friends that I know.

Something tells me that the kids that 'act out' today would've been the same kids who did this sh!t fifty or one hundred years ago, regardless of their parents' working status.

This is BS, the term Latch Key kids didn't come out of NOWHERE. with both parents working full time, kids do get less attention from their parents. Kids lives these days are function centered, they go to school, then they go to after school activities, then they go to this event or that event.

back in the "good ole days" lives of kids were a lot more centered on family. Not the same.

Hahaha, right, right. The "good ole days". The good ole days of segregation and racial/gender inequality.

Latchkey kids have always existed, I think it's the amount of attention they receive now (due to child "psychologists" and such) that for some reason implies causation.

I ask you, how many latchkey kids commit suicide?

Segregation and Racial/gender Inequality have almost NOTHING to do w/ child raising. (How a child is raised may cause them to be sexist / racist but really has not bearing on whethor or not the parents spent a lot of time with their children and reduced the odds of that child commiting suicide).

Latchkey KIDS have NOT always existed. It was a term used to describe a SPECIFIC group of kids and a SPECIFIC phenomenon that happened in the mid to late 20th century. Have kids that didn't have a good family structure always existed YES, have those kids in general not turned out as well, YES.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: Riprorin

If you say so. This thread isn't about teen suicide. I simply made the observation that teen suicide is up 3x since 1970 and inferred that it's related to the fact there are more familes where both parents are in the work force thans there were 30 years ago. I haven't done and exhaustive study of teen suicide and I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Anyway, we're getting off topic.

No, I think we're exactly on topic.

In aggregate, I don't necessarily think that kids get any less attention from their parents than they did fifty years ago. Both my parents have worked full time throughout my life, but I know that their children are their top priority. Ditto for all (ALL) of the friends that I know.

Something tells me that the kids that 'act out' today would've been the same kids who did this sh!t fifty or one hundred years ago, regardless of their parents' working status.

This is BS, the term Latch Key kids didn't come out of NOWHERE. with both parents working full time, kids do get less attention from their parents. Kids lives these days are function centered, they go to school, then they go to after school activities, then they go to this event or that event.

back in the "good ole days" lives of kids were a lot more centered on family. Not the same.

Hahaha, right, right. The "good ole days". The good ole days of segregation and racial/gender inequality.

Latchkey kids have always existed, I think it's the amount of attention they receive now (due to child "psychologists" and such) that for some reason implies causation.

I ask you, how many latchkey kids commit suicide?

Segregation and Racial/gender Inequality have almost NOTHING to do w/ child raising. (How a child is raised may cause them to be sexist / racist but really has not bearing on whethor or not the parents spent a lot of time with their children and reduced the odds of that child commiting suicide).

Latchkey KIDS have NOT always existed. It was a term used to describe a SPECIFIC group of kids and a SPECIFIC phenomenon that happened in the mid to late 20th century. Have kids that didn't have a good family structure always existed YES, have those kids in general not turned out as well, YES.

My apologies, I thought of the 1950's (as far as I know, the time period we're all referring to as "the good ole days"), and that was what came to mind. It didn't really figure into the argument, my apologies again if you took it that way.

 

[dejacky]

if u embellish love, it all falls into place. especially with kids.

 

[Jeff7]

Both my parents worked for most of my early years...up to maybe 4 years ago - my mom got a chronic illness and is unable to work. I turned out normal. I like to keep pudding and a ferret in my shirt, just like everyone else!

 

[WyteWatt]

Raising kids is a 24/7 job.